tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post7707356063234593682..comments2018-02-09T22:00:31.167-05:00Comments on FJB: Proof Positive: Jim Is More Sucky than the Lerners Are CheapStevennoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-268736716804888572008-12-19T12:18:00.000-05:002008-12-19T12:18:00.000-05:00Vendetta Police - I like it.Vendetta Police - I like it.Moe Greenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311920650204603127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-28921905008878401482008-12-19T11:47:00.000-05:002008-12-19T11:47:00.000-05:00Fair enough, I suppose. Kalkman can clarify what h...Fair enough, I suppose. <BR/><BR/>Kalkman can clarify what he's saying in his next post if he wishes, but the broader point is that it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison across all 30 teams when some are "trying" and some aren't. It is, in that sense, something of a defense of Cashman ("You paid a crapload of money, but at least you were pretty good") and something of a castigation of Bavasi ("You paid all that money for that crapbag team??!!!!"). The Nats are sort of ancillary to the discussion, since they're not really trying to win at this point -- or at least their payroll doesn't reflect such an immediate commitment.<BR/><BR/>Put another way, spending not a tremendous amount less in 2007 ($11M payroll difference), they were the third most cost-efficient team -- as opposed to the third least cost-efficient -- and that got them all the way up to 73 wins. You can certainly argue poor decisions on Bowden's part led to the decline to 59 wins (and thus a cost-inefficient result), but this is also a reflection that so little is put into this team on the MLB level at this point that the depth chart goes from inexperienced and injury-risk frontliners to replacement-level or sub-replacement reserves. So it's not really proof positive that Jim is more sucky than the Lerners are cheap.<BR/><BR/>That's why Maury Brown, for instance, categorizes these types of things along both an efficiency and an effectiveness axis. You might say that Jimbo was inefficient this past year, but without more resources put into the MLB team, his squad wasn't going to be terribly effective regardless.<BR/><BR/>(Yes, I realize that you were being glib with the title!)<BR/><BR/>((Think of this as more of the Vendetta Police than the Fairness Police!))Cpt. Lance Murdockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346481140960787459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-53454001437583277112008-12-19T07:52:00.000-05:002008-12-19T07:52:00.000-05:00You are correct however that the Nationals were mu...You are correct however that the Nationals were much closer to the top by marginal win per dollar in 2007. Consider it recognized.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14109288910583404941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-82709006982380947762008-12-19T07:42:00.000-05:002008-12-19T07:42:00.000-05:00When Sky said that this isn't a good way to judge ...When Sky said that this isn't a good way to judge GMs, his point was that this metric skews against the bigger payroll GMs. His comment was in defense of Brian Cashman, not Jim Bowden.<BR/><BR/>This is the point I made when I stated that it's hard to spend so little money so ineffectively.<BR/><BR/>Specifically, he said: <BR/><BR/>"Lastly, this analysis isn't actually a great way to judge the effectiveness of general managers. Spending the first $25MM over the leaugue-minimum (mostly money to first- and second-year arbitration players) is MUCH more efficient than the $100MMth dollar (mostly on free agents by that point). What we really want to do is ask, "Given a certain payroll level, how many wins would we expect a team to have, and which teams outperformed that number?" That requires a non-linear estimate of dollars-per-win, and another post. Stay tuned."Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14109288910583404941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-55748348870342700802008-12-19T07:23:00.000-05:002008-12-19T07:23:00.000-05:00Two things about this:(1) If you're doing to dock ...Two things about this:<BR/><BR/>(1) If you're doing to dock Jimbo for 2008 using this kind of metric, it stands to reason that you should recognize that <A HREF="http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2008/01/payroll_efficie.php" REL="nofollow">the 2007 season</A> was the reverse image.<BR/><BR/>(2) The BtBS author himself acknowledges that "this analysis isn't actually a great way to judge the effectiveness of general managers." To that end, one would hope there's some sort of blogging equivalent to the legal rule that a party can't rise above its own evidence.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, while you make some good points about Jimbo's mediocrity or general ineffectiveness as a GM over time, I don't think this post comes close to "proof postive" of Jimbo being sucky more than teh Lerners are cheeeeepppp!!!!111!!! (or whatever) than 2007 demonstrated that the Lerners were cheaper than Jimbo was sucky.Cpt. Lance Murdockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346481140960787459noreply@blogger.com